Whats Suh dud

Drones are a prime deterrent of terrorist plotting abroaddesigned to produce letal attackd here, at home, against the American people.

Drones have proven themselves in the real world. Read Seth Jones, Hunting in the Shadows: Repeatedly Jones describes nearly successfulterrorist crimes mounted in the US and Europe, thwarted late in the day by counterterrorist cadres whose achievements regularly go unnoticed. He then adds in passing that this or that al Quieda leader was later killed in a drone attack. What could be more effective?

Safer Than You Think

With the recent advances in missile guidance technology it has become much safer for the civilian population. And with different explosion types we no longer need to drop 100 bombs, we can accurately pin-point 1 person. Another reason it is safer is the different types of missiles used. And the technology can only get better and more accurate.

Does more harm than good

Drones are unmanned vehicles. They do not have the same intellectual thinking process and judgement as humans do. These machines operate on a given, already programmed directions which have a high chance of malfunctioning. It also costs much collateral damage. Not to mention the fact that at such a high cost, it has a low success rate. If put down before explosion, it is just a huge blow of money. Some people may say that it will prevent any of the troops lives from being killed. However, other countries' civilians are also innocent people that are just being killed relentlessly. And other point is that when drones are created, they are created to take up the jobs of the soldiers. This actually takes away the jobs in the military which isn't actually good for our economy.

A proven weapon at a reduced cost for everyone...Even resident civilians

For one thing, drones are much cheaper, in terms of dollars, than conventional land and air forces. Studies show that Reaper drones cost only $3.5 million per unit to build, while a manned U.S. Air Force B-2 bomber costs approximately $1.2 billion. In other words, for the price of one bomber, which requires a crew and lots of expensive fuel to operate, you could build 371 drones that are capable of most, if not all of the B-2's functions as a weapon. Pardon the pun, but drones give the United States a lot more bang for its buck.

Not only are drones financially superior, but their cost in American lives is far less than that of traditional military tactics. Too. On October 7, 2013, a platoon of Navy SEALs launched a raid in Barawe, Somalia, hoping to capture or kill a man identified as the head of the terrorist group al-Shabab, which was responsible for the September attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. The SEALs had to withdraw after they began taking heavy fire from al Shabab fighters. The mission was a failure, and several soldiers were seriously injured. Two weeks later, both al Shabab's leader and its top explosives expert were dead. This time, the mission put no American lives at risk; a single American soldier, comfortably safe in a control room hundreds of miles from the enemy, controlled a Predator drone that launched Hellfire missiles on the terrorists.

As if that wasn't enough, the cost in human lives is also better for civilians when drones are used. In every war, civilians get killed; it's a simple fact. What most people don't realize , however, is just how large a percentage of the total number of war dead happen to be civilians. In World War I, the number of civilian casualties was 40% of all the war's deaths. In World War II, that number rose to 65%. The Korean War brought non-combatant casualties to a whole new level, with 81% of the people dying in that war being civilians. Vietnam's civilian war casualty rate was 67%. Meanwhile, between 2004 and 2012, the United States directed thousands of drone strikes at terrorist targets in Pakistan. Of the estimated 2738 people killed in those strikes, only 33% were civilians. Clearly, the precision and accuracy afforded by the use of drones is helpful even to those unfortunate enough to be living in the territory of America's enemies.

Yes, it's safer for our troops

When we send unmanned drones into dangerous situations, it saves the lives of our troops. That is always a good thing! The idea behind this question is probably if we should be engaging in war at all, but that is a different beast entirely. If we have to go to war, I would much rather send in a mechanical device than a living, breathing human.

Save lives!

Yes, the United States should use drone warfare. Members of the American military already sacrifice enough to preserve our country's way of life. If the technology is developed, it should be used. The financial cost can never be measured in terms of American's lives. Drone warfare is just another development that we need to adapt.

Absolutely. Great invention.

Yes, the U.S. should be using drone warfare, and the military should be using it far more than what we have been. This will fundamentally keep manned soldiers out of harms way. It also proves, somewhat, that the military 'brass' has finally started to think intelligently. Since this technology is here to stay, I think we should be using it more.

Drone strikes allow the United States to become emotionally disconnected from the horrors of war:

According to Keith Shurtleff, US army chaplain and ethics instructor, as soldiers are "physically and psychologically removed from the horrors of battle and see the enemy not as humans but as blips on a screen, there is a danger of losing the deterrent to war that its horrors normally provide."Without this deterrent, it becomes easier for the United States to start new battles and extend existing conflicts indefinitely. Drone pilot Colonel D. Scott Brenton, in a July 29, 2012 interview with the New York Times, acknowledged the disconnect of fighting a "telewar with a joystick and a throttle" thousands of miles away from the battlefield, then driving home to have dinner with his family. "I feel no emotional attachment to the enemy," he said. "I have a duty, and I execute the duty. No one in my immediate environment is aware of anything that occurred." According to Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), it's "such a trend to dehumanize warfare. It's machines and computers doing the job... But this is not video games, these are real people and it's real death and we're making real enemies around the world by continuing with the drone strikes."

Drone strikes allow the United States to become emotionally disconnected from the horrors of war:

According to Keith Shurtleff, US army chaplain and ethics instructor, as soldiers are "physically and psychologically removed from the horrors of battle and see the enemy not as humans but as blips on a screen, there is a danger of losing the deterrent to war that its horrors normally provide."Without this deterrent, it becomes easier for the United States to start new battles and extend existing conflicts indefinitely. Drone pilot Colonel D. Scott Brenton, in a July 29, 2012 interview with the New York Times, acknowledged the disconnect of fighting a "telewar with a joystick and a throttle" thousands of miles away from the battlefield, then driving home to have dinner with his family. "I feel no emotional attachment to the enemy," he said. "I have a duty, and I execute the duty. No one in my immediate environment is aware of anything that occurred." According to Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), it's "such a trend to dehumanize warfare. It's machines and computers doing the job... But this is not video games, these are real people and it's real death and we're making real enemies around the world by continuing with the drone strikes."

Drone strikes allow the United States to become emotionally disconnected from the horrors of war:

According to Keith Shurtleff, US army chaplain and ethics instructor, as soldiers are "physically and psychologically removed from the horrors of battle and see the enemy not as humans but as blips on a screen, there is a danger of losing the deterrent to war that its horrors normally provide."Without this deterrent, it becomes easier for the United States to start new battles and extend existing conflicts indefinitely. Drone pilot Colonel D. Scott Brenton, in a July 29, 2012 interview with the New York Times, acknowledged the disconnect of fighting a "telewar with a joystick and a throttle" thousands of miles away from the battlefield, then driving home to have dinner with his family. "I feel no emotional attachment to the enemy," he said. "I have a duty, and I execute the duty. No one in my immediate environment is aware of anything that occurred." According to Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), it's "such a trend to dehumanize warfare. It's machines and computers doing the job... But this is not video games, these are real people and it's real death and we're making real enemies around the world by continuing with the drone strikes."

Drones can kill civilians

Drones are machines and in the end we control it humans who make mistakes we could be trying to take to take out a enemy target while instead we take out a school or a little village not even on the map no one will ever know and speak for those people whose only form of politics is about the village they live in. Now put yourself as a parent or family member who just lost a child or family member from that little village to a preemptive strike can you feel the pain? No i doubt it it is unimaginable for what they must feel. In some way we decide what happens to those kids or family members do they live or die

Drones can kill civilians

Drones are machines and in the end we control it humans who make mistakes we could be trying to take to take out a enemy target while instead we take out a school or a little village not even on the map no one will ever know and speak for those people whose only form of politics is about the village they live in. Now put yourself as a parent or family member who just lost a child or family member from that little village to a preemptive strike can you feel the pain? No i doubt it it is unimaginable for what they must feel. In some way we decide what happens to those kids or family members do they live or die

Killing Inocent People

Are our soldiers lives worth any more than innocent bystanders lives, who are trapped in a war torn country. After both sides have drones, it will be drones shooting drones. That's useless, so the drones will be designated to ruin cities and kill civilians on the "wrong side" Drones are bad

Does more harm than good

Drones are unmanned vehicles. They do not have the same intellectual thinking process and judgement as humans do. These machines operate on a given, already programmed directions which have a high chance of malfunctioning. It also costs much collateral damage. Not to mention the fact that at such a high cost, it has a low success rate. If put down before explosion, it is just a huge blow of money. Some people may say that it will prevent any of the troops lives from being killed. However, other countries' civilians are also innocent people that are just being killed relentlessly. And other point is that when drones are created, they are created to take up the jobs of the soldiers. This actually takes away the jobs in the military which isn't actually good for our economy.

Why Kill Innocent People -_-

Why kill more civilians than terrorist , i would rather send in troops to find one man then send a drone to kill a thousand.Osama is in a car in the city,pretend,and theres 10,000 people there with him would you kill them all for 1 man, for 10,000 lives.I understand 9/11 but its no reason to kill the innocent,how would you fell if it were u

Against human rights

To start, Pakistan doesn't want your soldiers, or drones. The drones especially have a civilian kill-count that's way too high, including countless innocent men, women and children. Secondly, every human has a right to a fair trial. Does anyone targetted by the "war on terror" get that? Nope. When you look at the numbers and see that more innocent people have died trying to PROTECT the USA from terrorists than have actually become a victim of the terrorist attacks themselves, you should really start to doubt there's any kind of healthy balance in the current policies of the USA.

No, the U.S. should not use drone warfare, because of collateral damage and genocide

Ninety-eight percent of all people killed by drone strikes are innocent civilians, with no connections to either terror organizations or other enemies of the United States. These weapons are used for death and destruction on a massive scale. International law (theoretically) should prohibit their use, for only weapons such as nuclear missiles, cluster bombs, and landmines (all banned by innumerable treaties) cause more collateral damage and death.